1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY MARTIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-09812-AB (SHK)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records 19 on file, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 21 portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends dismissal of the Petition, which was filed under 28

, without prejudice because it does not qualify for the “savings 24 clause” of

(e). (Dkt. No. 10.) Petitioner filed Objections to the 25 Report. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the following reasons, Petitioner’s Objections do not 26 warrant a change in the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendation. 27 Petitioner objects that he may proceed under the savings clause because he 28 has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claims of actual 1 || innocence under United States v. Taylor,

(2022), and related Supreme 2 |} Court decisions. (Dkt. No. 12 at 2.) It is undisputed that Petitioner’s claims of 3 || actual innocence are based on changes in statutory interpretation rather than on new 4 || rules of constitutional law. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10-11, Dkt. No. 10 at 9.) Therefore, the 5 || claims are foreclosed by Jones v. Hendrix,

(2023), in which the 6 || Supreme Court held “that § 2255(e)’s savings clause does not permit a prisoner 7 || asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to circumvent [the] 8 || restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.” 9 || See also Birtha v. Gilley,

, at *2 (6th Cir. 2023) (Taylor claims, 10 || which are based on changes in statutory interpretation, cannot be brought under the 11 || savings clause in light of Jones). 12 Finally, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgment.” (DKt. 13 || No. 14.) In the Motion, Petitioner objects that the Clerk’s Office notified him that 14 || his Objections to the Report were untimely filed. (/d. at 1; see also Dkt. No. 13.) 15 || Because the Court considered and addressed the merits of Petitioner’s Objections, 16 || the Motion is denied as moot. 17 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 18 || Judge is accepted and adopted; (2) Petitioner’s Motion is denied as moot (Dkt. No. 19 || 14); and (3) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this case 20 || without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 21 22 || DATED: August 15, 2024

24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28